|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RESPONDENT: I am completely, 100%, secular in my outlook. Not every Hindu is (and so aren’t other religions). RICHARD: So as to assist my comprehension of what you are wishing to convey could you explain what the word ‘secular’ means to you? Here is what a dictionary has to say on the subject: (snip dictionary definitions). I only ask because it is usually understood that there is a vast, and unbridgeable, distinction between the secular and the sacred. RESPONDENT: Secular to me means that all religions are equal. RICHARD: Ahh ... now I see what you have been talking about in this thread. Perhaps the words ‘non-sectarian’ or ‘non-denominational’ might be more apt (or even ecumenical, egalitarian or universal)? As in:
RESPONDENT: Anyone who claims that his religion is superior to another is non-secular. RICHARD: Usually such a person is said to be sectarian. RESPONDENT: I don’t have much idea about what is sacred. RICHARD: Generally speaking that which is sacred is not the secular. RESPONDENT: Life itself is sacred. RICHARD: Yet below you say that ‘Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion’ ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred? * RICHARD: And since you have often equated what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of for 60-plus years as being the same or similar to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Shankara were describing would you also say that they too were secular in their outlook? RESPONDENT: Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion. Buddha called reality ‘Void’, Shankara called is ‘Brahma’. Krishnamurti expressed it by different names, for example, ‘Otherness’ (that is not touched by thought). Since all three conceptions of Truth are non-comparative, all three are secular. Whether they are sacred as well, I don’t know. What do you say? RICHARD: I would say that your communication may very well be better served by using some other word than ‘secular’ when describing ‘all three conceptions of Truth’ (that is, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘Void’ , Mr. Shankara’s ‘Brahma’, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Otherness’) ... by no stretch of the English language could they ever be described as secular. Or, for another example, as when a few weeks ago you wrote that the basic Hindu philosophy is secular (which made me wonder at the time if someone had slipped something into your drinking water). Viz.:
It is the Indian Constitution which is secular (the separation of religion and state) ... not the Hindu Philosophy. Also, from your description of the Rishi Valley School (and from what I have both read elsewhere and personally discussed with a representative at ‘Vasanta Vihar’, in what was then Madras, in 1984) the school does not deliver what could be called a secular education. Which is perhaps the main reason for enrolling one’s children there.
RESPONDENT: Secular to me means that all religions are equal. RICHARD: Ahh ... now I see what you have been talking about in this thread. Perhaps the words ‘non-sectarian’ or ‘non-denominational’ might be more apt (or even ecumenical, egalitarian or universal)? As in: ‘I am completely, 100%, non-sectarian in my outlook. Not every Hindu is (and so aren’t other religions)’. RESPONDENT: I used ‘secular’ in the following sense (W-M on-line): 2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically: of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>. Maybe non-sectarian expresses what I had in mind better. RICHARD: It certainly would ... unless you are prepared to explain to people such as me, time and again, that you are a secular Hindu priest inasmuch as you neither belong to a particular Hindu religious order or congregation nor are you bound by any Hindu monastic vows or rules? * RESPONDENT: I don’t have much idea about what is sacred. RICHARD: Generally speaking that which is sacred is not the secular. RESPONDENT: Life itself is sacred. RICHARD: Yet below you say that ‘Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion’ ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred? RESPONDENT: Their approach was secular in the above sense of the word. RICHARD: Even if so ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred (‘the world is an illusion’)? * RICHARD: And since you have often equated what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of for 60-plus years as being the same or similar to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Shankara were describing would you also say that they too were secular in their outlook? RESPONDENT: Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion. Buddha called reality ‘Void’, Shankara called is ‘Brahma’. Krishnamurti expressed it by different names, for example, ‘Otherness’ (that is not touched by thought). Since all three conceptions of Truth are non-comparative, all three are secular. Whether they are sacred as well, I don’t know. What do you say? RICHARD: I would say that your communication may very well be better served by using some other word than ‘secular’ when describing ‘all three conceptions of Truth’ (that is, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘Void’, Mr. Shankara’s ‘Brahma’, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Otherness’) ... by no stretch of the English language could they ever be described as secular. Or, for another example, as when a few weeks ago you wrote that the basic Hindu philosophy is secular (which made me wonder at the time if someone had slipped something into your drinking water). Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Hinduism did not espouse fanaticism because the basic Hindu philosophy is secular and tolerant of other faiths. This is an essential difference between Hinduism and other faiths ...’. (Sun, 9 Sep 2001; Re: Train to Pakistan; www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m13614.html). It is the Indian Constitution which is secular (the separation of religion and state) ... not the Hindu Philosophy. RESPONDENT: The basic philosophy of Hinduism is: ‘Sarva Dharm Sambhav’ – treat all religions equal. RICHARD: Which translates, in practice and as deed, into absorbing all other religions under the Hindu aegis ... you have even attempted several times to make what I report (which is non-religious, non-spiritual, non-mystical and non-metaphysical) into being the same as or similar to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr. Shankara and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had to say. RESPONDENT: There have been no crusaders, no jehadis, in Hinduism. That is because Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another. B, S, and K, spoke from that state of mind. RICHARD: Oh? Just for starters Mr. Gotama the Sakyan made it clear that he was greater than all the Hindu Gods (including Brahma). Viz.:
That clearly reads as being ‘superior to another’ ... to all the others, in fact. * RICHARD: Also, from your description of the Rishi Valley School (and from what I have both read elsewhere and personally discussed with a representative at ‘Vasanta Vihar’, in what was then Madras, in 1984) the school does not deliver what could be called a secular education. RESPONDENT: The school did not preach any religion. RICHARD: Surely you mean any religion other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘true religion’? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I would say that education at RV was based upon tolerance towards all religions and was secular (as in the above sense of the word) as well as non-sectarian. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ may have had a lot of things contained therein but having ‘tolerance towards all religions’ was most definitely not one of its features ... that style of education is more in line with Theosophical Society’s approach. Furthermore, I guess it could be said that he was ‘secular (as in the above sense of the word)’ provided you nominate which religion he was [quote] a secular priest [endquote] of. And would you nominate Hinduism, perchance? * RICHARD: Which is perhaps the main reason for enrolling one’s children there. RESPONDENT: There were many reasons why people would send their children to RV: interest in K, good education, healthy atmosphere, non-parochial outlook, etc. RICHARD: Hmm ... but to gain what could be called a secular education (a non-religious education) is not one of the ‘many reasons’.
RESPONDENT: I don’t have much idea about what is sacred. RICHARD: Generally speaking that which is sacred is not the secular. RESPONDENT: Life itself is sacred. RICHARD: Yet below you say that ‘Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion’ ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred? RESPONDENT: Their approach was secular in the above sense of the word. RICHARD: Even if so ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred (‘the world is an illusion’)? RESPONDENT: Illusion is not sacred (in the sense of ‘whole’). It is the absence of illusion that is sacred. K, B, and S are unanimous on that point, and yours truly has no doubt in his mind either. RICHARD: So when you say that ‘life itself is sacred’, in conjunction with ‘the world is an illusion’, you are not talking about all flora and fauna being sacred ... but that it is the ‘absence’ of all flora and fauna that is sacred? What then does the word ‘life’ mean to you if not all flora and fauna (in both name and form). * RESPONDENT: The basic philosophy of Hinduism is: ‘Sarva Dharm Sambhav’ – treat all religions equal. RICHARD: Which translates, in practice and as deed, into absorbing all other religions under the Hindu aegis. RESPONDENT: No. Sarva-dharm-sambhav means that one doesn’t claim one religion superior to another: such a claim will be divisive and hence not whole (and hence not sacred). RICHARD: That may be the ideal being claimed, yes ... whereas the reality is that Hinduism absorbs all other religions under its broad umbrella (conveniently ignoring the differences between one religion and another). Thus the divisiveness continues unabated ... and will continue until the Hindu ceases being a Hindu (in this instance). A lie – no matter how clever the lie may be – remains a lie nevertheless. * RESPONDENT: ... Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another. B, S, and K, spoke from that state of mind. RICHARD: Oh? Just for starters Mr. Gotama the Sakyan made it clear that he was greater than all the Hindu Gods (including Brahma). Viz.: [A monk wanted to know] ‘Where do these four great elements – the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property – cease without remainder?’ (...) the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings said ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) the Four Great Kings said ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) the gods of the Thirty-three said ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) Sakka, the ruler of the gods, said ‘I don’t know ...’ (...) The Yama gods said, ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) Suyama said, ‘I don’t know ...’ (...) Santusita said, ‘I don’t know ...’ (...) The Nimmanarati gods said, ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) Sunimmita said, ‘I don’t know ...’ (...) the Paranimmitavasavatti gods said, ‘We don’t know ...’ (...) the god Vasavatti said ‘I don’t know ...’ (...) the gods of the retinue of Brahma said, ‘We don’t know ... but there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than we. He should know ...’ (...) the Great Brahma said, ‘I don’t know where the four great elements ... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart’. (DN 11 PTS: DN i.211; Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta; (Conversations with the Gods): www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn11.html). RESPONDENT: Interesting. RICHARD: It is indeed ‘interesting’ ... it patently shows the lie regarding the claim of Hinduism that all religions are equal (Buddhism claims superiority). RESPONDENT: So, did they ask the Blessed One? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: What did he say? RICHARD: He said that earth, liquid, fire and wind have no footing where consciousness ceases. Viz.:
Which means, in plain English, that the universe and all its contents (including all its Hindu gods) are brought to an end in the after-death timeless and spaceless and formless realm (Parinirvana). * RICHARD: That clearly reads as being ‘superior to another’ ... to all the others, in fact. RESPONDENT: Not necessarily. That will depend upon what the Blessed One said. RICHARD: It does not ‘depend upon what the Blessed One said’ at all: the ‘Blessed One’ had already made it clear that the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings, the Four Great Kings themselves, the gods of the Thirty-three, Sakka, the ruler of the gods, the Yama gods, Suyama, Santusita, the Nimmanarati gods, Sunimmita, the Paranimmitavasavatti gods, the god Vasavatti, the gods of the retinue of Brahma and Brahma himself (the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be) all did not know the answer to this monk’s question. Furthermore, the ‘Blessed One’ had already made it clear that the Great Brahma had said that the monk had acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere (including asking the Great Brahma). In fact the ‘Blessed One’ had the Great Brahma instruct the monk to go right back to the ‘Blessed One’ and, on arrival, to ask him the question ... adding that however the ‘Blessed One’ answers the question the monk should take the answer to heart. In modern-day lingo it amounts to the highest of the Hindu gods writing a blank cheque. * RICHARD: Also, from your description of the Rishi Valley School (and from what I have both read elsewhere and personally discussed with a representative at ‘Vasanta Vihar’, in what was then Madras, in 1984) the school does not deliver what could be called a secular education. RESPONDENT: The school did not preach any religion. RICHARD: Surely you mean any religion other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘true religion’? Viz.: (snip quotes). RESPONDENT: ‘True religion’ of K is not an organized, faith-based religion. He is talking about ‘inquiring for oneself, without any dogmas and belief’. RICHARD: Aye ... so as to find the ‘true religion’ which he had discovered. RESPONDENT: I will teach that religion any day with utmost enthusiasm, as some of us did at Rishi Valley. RICHARD: And this is the only point I am making here ... that the students do not receive a secular (a non-religious) education.
RESPONDENT: Life itself is sacred. RICHARD: Yet you say that ‘Buddha and Shankara both preached essentially the same thing: that the world is an illusion’ ... why would an ‘illusion’ be sacred? RESPONDENT: Illusion is not sacred (in the sense of ‘whole’). It is the absence of illusion that is sacred. K, B, and S are unanimous on that point, and yours truly has no doubt in his mind either. RICHARD: So when you say that ‘life itself is sacred’, in conjunction with ‘the world is an illusion’, you are not talking about all flora and fauna being sacred ... but that it is the ‘absence’ of all flora and fauna that is sacred? What then does the word ‘life’ mean to you if not all flora and fauna (in both name and form). RESPONDENT: The world of illusion = world of images, hopes, despair, joys, heart throbs and heart aches. To perceive a snake in a rope is illusion; to perceive a rope as a rope is not illusion. The world of flora and fauna untempered by desire is non-illusory. RICHARD: Ahh ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? If so, where you say that ‘life itself is sacred’ are you saying that all flora and fauna are sacred (every single plant, including algae, and every single animal, including microbes)? Absolutely everything that is born, grows, ages, and dies is sacred to you? * RESPONDENT: The basic philosophy of Hinduism is: ‘Sarva Dharm Sambhav’ – treat all religions equal. RICHARD: Which translates, in practice and as deed, into absorbing all other religions under the Hindu aegis. RESPONDENT: No. Sarva-dharm-sambhav means that one doesn’t claim one religion superior to another: such a claim will be divisive and hence not whole (and hence not sacred). RICHARD: That may be the ideal being claimed, yes ... whereas the reality is that Hinduism absorbs all other religions under its broad umbrella (conveniently ignoring the differences between one religion and another). Thus the divisiveness continues unabated ... and will continue until the Hindu ceases being a Hindu (in this instance). RESPONDENT: Yes, people acting under illusion tend to do that. RICHARD: And those not ‘acting under illusion’ tend to do what ... still remain a Hindu (in this instance)? * RICHARD: A lie – no matter how clever the lie may be – remains a lie nevertheless. RESPONDENT: Is gravity a lie? RICHARD: No ... the lie being discussed is the lie of Hinduism that all religions are equal when they are not: you specifically said (further below) that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr Shankara and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti all spoke from the same state of mind (‘that no religion is superior to another so there is no need to impose itself on another’). I provided a quote that has Mr. Gotama the Sakyan (now snipped) claiming he knew more than all of the Brahmanic Gods plus two quotes from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (now snipped) propounding a ‘true religion’ and that one was to ‘not merely accept the established religions’. Here is another quote from yet another book of his:
I will say it again ... the line you are pushing is the attitude espoused by Theosophical Society. RESPONDENT: Truth is truth: illusion makes it a lie. RICHARD: The ‘illusion’ in this case being that no religion is superior to another? * RESPONDENT: ... Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another. B, S, and K, spoke from that state of mind. RICHARD: Oh? Just for starters Mr. Gotama the Sakyan made it clear that he was greater than all the Hindu Gods (including Brahma). Viz.: (snip Digha Nikaya 11 [Conversations With Gods] quote). RESPONDENT: Interesting. RICHARD: It is indeed ‘interesting’ ... it patently shows the lie regarding the claim of Hinduism that all religions are equal (Buddhism claims superiority). RESPONDENT: No, it doesn’t. Please read on ... RICHARD: I did read on ... only to find that you make the case that the ‘higher lower’ distinction ceases only when ‘the manifest ceases to be’ (all flora and all fauna ... and all mineral as well). Buddhism has it that the ‘Deathless’ (accessible at Parinirvana or the physical death of an enlightened being) has nothing to do with time and space and form whatsoever ... whereas Hinduism has it that ‘Brahman’ (accessible at Mahasamadhi or the physical death of an enlightened being) is the source of time and space and form. Even after-death Buddhism claims the high moral ground. * RESPONDENT: So, did they ask the Blessed One? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: What did he say? RICHARD: He said that earth, liquid, fire and wind have no footing where consciousness ceases. Viz.: [the Blessed One said] ‘the question should not be phrased in that way: Instead, it should be phrased like this: Where do water, earth, fire and wind have no footing? Where are long and short, coarse and fine, fair and foul, name and form brought to an end? And the answer to that is: Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: here [the ‘Deathless’], water, earth, fire and wind have no footing. Here long and short, coarse and fine, fair and foul, name and form, are all brought to an end. With the cessation of consciousness each is here [the ‘Deathless’] brought to an end’. (DN 11 PTS: DN i.211; Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta; (Conversations with the Gods): www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn11.html). Which means, in plain English, that the universe and all its contents (including all its Hindu gods) are brought to an end in the after-death timeless and spaceless and formless realm (Parinirvana). RESPONDENT: Exactly. With time there is the manifest: with time-less, the manifest ceases to be. RICHARD: Oh? Yet further above you say that flora and fauna are not illusory. Viz.
May I ask? What does the word ‘manifest’ mean to you ... and just what does your (borrowed) phrase ‘life itself is sacred’ mean to convey? * RICHARD: That clearly reads as being ‘superior to another’ ... to all the others, in fact. RESPONDENT: Not necessarily. That will depend upon what the Blessed One said. RICHARD: It does not ‘depend upon what the Blessed One said’ at all: the ‘Blessed One’ had already made it clear that the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings, the Four Great Kings themselves, the gods of the Thirty-three, Sakka, the ruler of the gods, the Yama gods, Suyama, Santusita, the Nimmanarati gods, Sunimmita, the Paranimmitavasavatti gods, the god Vasavatti, the gods of the retinue of Brahma and Brahma himself (the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be) all did not know the answer to this monk’s question. Furthermore, the ‘Blessed One’ had already made it clear that the Great Brahma had said that the monk had acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere (including asking the Great Brahma). In fact the ‘Blessed One’ had the Great Brahma instruct the monk to go right back to the ‘Blessed One’ and, on arrival, to ask him the question ... adding that however the ‘Blessed One’ answers the question the monk should take the answer to heart. In modern-day lingo it amounts to the highest of the Hindu gods writing a blank cheque. RESPONDENT: No it doesn’t. With the timeless, the cheque book vanishes as well :-). RICHARD: It vanishes right along with the highest of the Hindu gods (according to Buddhism all gods are mortal). RESPONDENT: The Blessed One is talking about the time-less state, the state of singularity, in which higher lower vanish. RICHARD: Hmm ... and thus peace-on-earth is not on his agenda at all (the earth vanishes as well in the ‘Deathless’ state). * RICHARD: Also, from your description of the Rishi Valley School (and from what I have both read elsewhere and personally discussed with a representative at ‘Vasanta Vihar’, in what was then Madras, in 1984) the school does not deliver what could be called a secular education. RESPONDENT: The school did not preach any religion. RICHARD: Surely you mean any religion other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘true religion’? Viz.: (snip quotes). RESPONDENT: ‘True religion’ of K is not an organized, faith-based religion. He is talking about ‘inquiring for oneself, without any dogmas and belief’. RICHARD: Aye ... so as to find the ‘true religion’ which he had discovered. RESPONDENT: I will teach that religion any day with utmost enthusiasm, as some of us did at Rishi Valley. RICHARD: And this is the only point I am making here ... that the students do not receive a secular (a non-religious) education. RESPONDENT: The purpose of the schools is very clearly spelt out by K: to help bring out a free human being. RICHARD: I demur ... the quotes I provided, being representative of the general thrust of the ‘Teachings’, clearly show that the purpose is to bring about a religious human being (and not ‘a free human being’). RESPONDENT: If you think explorations leading to freedom are religious, then so it be. RICHARD: No, that is what you make of the point that I am establishing ... I am saying that explorations leading to religion (albeit ‘true religion’) are religious. RESPONDENT: I already agreed, by the way, that non-sectarian is a better term than secular. RICHARD: Aye ... I am drawing attention to the fact the schools are religious schools (whether they are or are not non-sectarian in their religious instruction is not what induced me to enter into this thread ... as always it is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, that I am interested in). It is the un-examined premises regarding what constitutes freedom that I am questioning here.
RESPONDENT: The world of illusion = world of images, hopes, despair, joys, heart throbs and heart aches. To perceive a snake in a rope is illusion; to perceive a rope as a rope is not illusion. The world of flora and fauna untempered by desire is non-illusory. RICHARD: Ahh ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT: I guarantee, all existence is relative. RICHARD: What is this universe ‘relative’ to (as an actuality and not as a concept)? RESPONDENT: So, within that relativity, yes, stripped of illusion, flora and fauna exist. RICHARD: What ‘relativity’ are you talking about (other than the mathematician’s relativity)? * RICHARD: Absolutely everything that is born, grows, ages, and dies is sacred to you? RESPONDENT: Where there is no illusion, no mistaking of the rope for the snake, yes, life is sacred (in the sense that it is whole). RICHARD: Where I say all flora and fauna I am meaning every single plant, including algae, and every single animal, including microbes ... is each single life sacred (and not some abstract concept called life)? Otherwise you are saying the ‘whole’ (whatever that is) is sacred. * RESPONDENT: Sarva-dharm-sambhav means that one doesn’t claim one religion superior to another: such a claim will be divisive and hence not whole (and hence not sacred). RICHARD: That may be the ideal being claimed, yes ... whereas the reality is that Hinduism absorbs all other religions under its broad umbrella (conveniently ignoring the differences between one religion and another). Thus the divisiveness continues unabated ... and will continue until the Hindu ceases being a Hindu (in this instance). RESPONDENT: Yes, people acting under illusion tend to do that. RICHARD: And those not ‘acting under illusion’ tend to do what ... still remain a Hindu (in this instance)? RESPONDENT: They become pseudo Hindus. A true Hindu identifies with nothing, for him the whole world is the same. RICHARD: Then why is such a person a ‘Hindu’ and not a human being (assuming that by ‘whole world’ you mean each and every human being)? * RICHARD: A lie – no matter how clever the lie may be – remains a lie nevertheless. RESPONDENT: Is gravity a lie? RICHARD: No ... the lie being discussed is the lie of Hinduism that all religions are equal when they are not: you specifically said (further below) that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr Shankara and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti all spoke from the same state of mind (that‘no religion is superior to another so there is no need to impose itself on another’). I provided a quote (now snipped) that has Mr. Gotama the Sakyan claiming he knew more than all of the Brahmanic Gods plus two quotes (now snipped) from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti propounding a ‘true religion’ and that one was to ‘not merely accept the established religions’. Here is another quote from yet another book of his: [quote]: ‘Without religion you cannot create a new structure, a new society. *What we have as religion is utter nonsense, meaningless*. We have to enquire into the depth of that word. Because, only a new culture, a new civilisation can be born out of *true religion* ...’. [emphasis added] (‘Mind Without Measure’, page 23; © 1984 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd. London). I will say it again ... the line you are pushing is the attitude espoused by Theosophical Society. RESPONDENT: Where there is no illusion, there is wholeness. If Theosophists said that, I agree with them as well. RICHARD: No ... the subject being discussed is the attitude espoused by yourself, Hinduism and the Theosophical Society (that all religions are equal). Here is an unambiguous statement:
The words ‘all the present religious structure, religious beliefs and ideas’ surely must include Hinduism and Theosophy, eh? * RESPONDENT: Truth is truth: illusion makes it a lie. RICHARD: The ‘illusion’ in this case being that no religion is superior to another? RESPONDENT: Yes. And that is what the Beloved One was saying yesterday: there is no higher or lower. RICHARD: Where? * RESPONDENT: ... Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another. B, S, and K, spoke from that state of mind. RICHARD: Oh? Just for starters Mr. Gotama the Sakyan made it clear that he was greater than all the Hindu Gods (including Brahma). Viz.: (snip Digha Nikaya 11 [Conversations With Gods] quote). RESPONDENT: Interesting. RICHARD: It is indeed ‘interesting’ ... it patently shows the lie regarding the claim of Hinduism that all religions are equal (Buddhism claims superiority). RESPONDENT: No, it doesn’t. Please read on ... RICHARD: I did read on ... only to find that you make the case that the ‘higher lower’ distinction ceases only when ‘the manifest ceases to be’ (all flora and all fauna ... and all mineral as well). Buddhism has it that the ‘Deathless’ (accessible at Parinirvana or the physical death of an enlightened being) has nothing to do with time and space and form whatsoever ... whereas Hinduism has it that ‘Brahman’ (accessible at Mahasamadhi or the physical death of an enlightened being) is the source of time and space and form. Even after-death Buddhism claims the high moral ground. RESPONDENT: But Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. RICHARD: But not in the same way that the ‘Deathless’ (the ‘Amata’) is ... as explained above. RESPONDENT: So, it has nothing to with time, space, or form. RICHARD: It has inasmuch as the divisive results get played out in time and space and form ... and such division is directly related to how the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Amata’ distinctly differs from the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahman’. RESPONDENT: Brahma and Void are the two sides of the same nameless, formless, ... etc, coin. RICHARD: Only according to a Hindu ... Hinduism absorbs all other religions under its broad umbrella (conveniently ignoring the differences between one religion and another). Thus the divisiveness continues unabated ... and will continue until the Hindu ceases being a Hindu (in this instance). Of course ... a Buddhist will cease being a Buddhist (in that instance) and so on for all religions. * RESPONDENT: With time there is the manifest: with time-less, the manifest ceases to be. RICHARD: Oh? Yet further above you say that flora and fauna are not illusory. RESPONDENT: All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. To identify with this relative existence is to be caught in duality. RICHARD: The impression being conveyed with your phrase ‘life itself is sacred’ is that it is ‘Brahma or Void’ which is sacred ... and that all flora and fauna, being ‘relative’ (whatever that means) or ‘in duality’, are not sacred at all. * RICHARD: May I ask? What does the word ‘manifest’ mean to you ... and just what does your (borrowed) phrase ‘life itself is sacred’ mean to convey? RESPONDENT: Manifest = that can be sensed. RICHARD: Okay ... therefore your sentence (‘with time there is the manifest: with time-less, the manifest ceases to be’) reads as follows:
Which means that ‘with time-less’ all flora and fauna (and mineral) cease to be. RESPONDENT: Life itself is sacred – already explained – sacred = whole. RICHARD: I am starting to get what you mean by the word ‘life’ loud and clear .... not the flora and the fauna as in every single plant, including algae, and every single animal, including microbes. Plus the source of life – the mineral world – as well. * RESPONDENT: The Blessed One is talking about the time-less state, the state of singularity, in which higher lower vanish. RICHARD: Hmm ... and thus peace-on-earth is not on his agenda at all (the earth vanishes as well in the ‘Deathless’ state). RESPONDENT: Oh no, it is very much there ... RICHARD: Not so ... this is the dimension of the ‘Amata’ Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is talking of:
The goal of Buddhism is to find/attain the ‘Deathless’ (‘amata’) ... an after-death realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). The earth (the mineral world and all its flora and fauna) is not ‘very much there’ at all according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan. RESPONDENT: ... when illusion ends, then there is nothing but peace. RICHARD: And after-death ‘peace’, yes ... but not peace-on-earth. * RESPONDENT: The purpose of the schools is very clearly spelt out by K: to help bring out a free human being. RICHARD: I demur ... the quotes I provided, being representative of the general thrust of the ‘Teachings’, clearly show that the purpose is to bring about a religious human being (and not ‘a free human being’). RESPONDENT: A free human being is a religious human being. Religious = sacred = whole = free. RICHARD: Yet the many and varied saints, sages and seers have all demonstrated some form of anger and anguish from time-to-time. * RESPONDENT: If you think explorations leading to freedom are religious, then so it be. RICHARD: No, that is what you make of the point that I am establishing ... I am saying that explorations leading to religion (albeit ‘true religion’) are religious. RESPONDENT: Sure. See the above equation. RICHARD: I did ... and your equation has nothing to do with the actual freedom which ensues when the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. * RESPONDENT: I already agreed, by the way, that non-sectarian is a better term than secular. RICHARD: Aye ... I am drawing attention to the fact the schools are religious schools (whether they are or are not non-sectarian in their religious instruction is not what induced me to enter into this thread ... as always it is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, that I am interested in). RESPONDENT: And I am saying that a free man (who is religious, whole, etc.) will be 100% peaceful. RICHARD: The evidence of history shows otherwise. RESPONDENT: That was the purpose of K schools. RICHARD: Not peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. * RICHARD: It is the un-examined premises regarding what constitutes freedom that I am questioning here. RESPONDENT: So far I haven’t seen any un-examined premises being exposed. RICHARD: Maybe you are not questioning them?
RESPONDENT: The world of illusion = world of images, hopes, despair, joys, heart throbs and heart aches. To perceive a snake in a rope is illusion; to perceive a rope as a rope is not illusion. The world of flora and fauna untempered by desire is non-illusory. RICHARD: Ahh ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT: What is the extent of the universe (existence) as you define it? RICHARD: It is immeasurably vast: spatially it is infinite; temporally it is eternal; materially it is perpetual. RESPONDENT: In other words, how big, how large, is this physical universe? RICHARD: In astronomical terms it is immense beyond human (earthly) comparison: the better the telescope the larger the known universe is ... the Next Generation Space Telescope (expected to be launched in 2009 when the Hubble Space Telescope ends its useful life) will collect light in the infrared band rather than the optical band and will push the present boundaries past the range of current human visibility. However, what has been discovered thus far is colossal: for an example, in 1986 an enormous conglomeration of galaxies 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick was found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe (12 to 14 billion years) simply look sillier than it already did. There is a rather cute answer to your question at the following URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816095531/http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry//ask/a10568.html. Infinitude cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling.
RESPONDENT: The world of illusion = world of images, hopes, despair, joys, heart throbs and heart aches. To perceive a snake in a rope is illusion; to perceive a rope as a rope is not illusion. The world of flora and fauna untempered by desire is non-illusory. RICHARD: Ahh ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT: What is the extent of the universe (existence) as you define it? RICHARD: It is immeasurably vast: spatially it is infinite; temporally it is eternal; materially it is perpetual. RESPONDENT: In other words, how big, how large, is this physical universe? RICHARD: In astronomical terms it is immense beyond human (earthly) comparison: the better the telescope the larger the known universe is ... the Next Generation Space Telescope (expected to be launched in 2009 when the Hubble Space Telescope ends its useful life) will collect light in the infrared band rather than the optical band and will push the present boundaries past the range of current human visibility. However, what has been discovered thus far is colossal: for an example, in 1986 an enormous conglomeration of galaxies 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick was found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe (12 to 14 billion years) simply look sillier than it already did. There is a rather cute answer to your question at this URL (http://web.archive.org/web/20000816095531/http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry//ask/a10568.html). Infinitude cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling. RESPONDENT: Since the universe is ‘immeasurably vast’, how can it be an ‘objective actuality’? RICHARD: Something does not have to be measured to be objective (existing in its own right). Infinitude simply cannot be calculated as ... um ... as beginning here and ending there. Infinitude is beginningless and endless; boundless and limitless; perpetual and perdurable; unborn and undying ... and, as I said, it cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling. If you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. RESPONDENT: The universe that you talk about in the above post is, to a very large extent, is non-objective. RICHARD: Where I say ‘in astronomical terms’ I definitively mean as seen with telescopes ... astronomy proper is all about being objective (viewing objects which exist independent of a particular person). * RESPONDENT: From the URL that you post above: [quote]: ‘We can only estimate the size of the visible universe, and this seems to be between 10 - 20 billion light years in radius depending on the age of the universe you take. Cosmologically, general relativity says that there is a lot more universe beyond the horizon of our visible universe. The actual amount of universe out there could be infinite. As the universe gets older and older, light can travel farther across space, so the size of our visible universe increases by 1 light year per year. [endquote]. What you are talking about (the universe) is but an estimate, that is rooted in the mathematical conception of general relativity. RICHARD: Which is why I said it was a ‘rather cute answer’ ... only a dyed-in-the-wool mathematician would take a mathematical universe to be the thing itself. I was particularly bemused by the qualifier the author provided (‘depending on the age of the universe you take’) ... most of that web-site is dedicated to providing answers derived from the ‘Big Bang’ model. And the ‘Big Bang Theory’, first proposed by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927 and strikingly similar to the Biblical Creation myth, is shot full of gaping holes ... which are progressively becoming more and more incapable of being forever plugged by mathematicians’ increasingly frantic coefficients. The current passionate preoccupation by academia with ‘Quantum Theory’ gets ever more frenetic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician RESPONDENT: In other words, it is not an objective actuality. RICHARD: Indeed not ... Mr. Albert Einstein did not become famous because of his objectivity: he is reported as having said that [quote] ‘the religion of the future will be a cosmic religion (...) if there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism ...’ [endquote]. (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein/god.html). Maybe he meant that ‘the science of the future will be a cosmic religion ... if there is any science that would cope with the religious needs it will be General Relativity’? It would all be an hilarious joke if only it were not taken so seriously ... I noticed a few years ago that NASA had appropriated millions of dollars with the idea of sending space-ships through ‘worm-holes in the space-time continuum’ ... if only they can find one existing somewhere else than in the fantasy-driven world of higher mathematics dreamed up in the halls of academia, that is. RESPONDENT: So, why do you call that which is not an objective actuality, objective actuality? RICHARD: I see that I should have posted the URL as a postscript rather than putting it in the main part of my response ... I am no aficionado of ‘General Relativity’. This universe was here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead – eternity is forever – and there can be nothing more objective than that. This universe is absolute ... it is not relative to anything.
RICHARD: ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT: What is the extent of the universe (existence) as you define it? RICHARD: It is immeasurably vast: spatially it is infinite; temporally it is eternal; materially it is perpetual. (snip astronomical and cosmogonical discussion). This universe is absolute ... it is not relative to anything. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: Good ... I take it, therefore, that your previous statements regarding the relativity of all existence are no longer valid? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It matters not if someone else calls this universe Brahma, Void, Otherness, foo, or Coca-Cola. RICHARD: It matters inasmuch as it informs the listener where the speaker is speaking from ... to call this physical universe ‘Brahma’ indicates a Hindu conditioning; to call this physical universe ‘Void’ indicates a poor quality Buddhist understanding; to call this physical universe ‘Otherness’ indicates a generalised religio-spiritual comprehension; to call this physical universe ‘foo’ indicates ignorance; to call this physical universe ‘Coca-Cola’ indicates a cleverness operating. Therefore, in the interests of clarity of communication, I prefer to call it by its proper name.
RICHARD: ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT: What is the extent of the universe (existence) as you define it? RICHARD: It is immeasurably vast: spatially it is infinite; temporally it is eternal; materially it is perpetual. (snip astronomical and cosmogonical discussion). This universe is absolute ... it is not relative to anything. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: Good ... I take it, therefore, that your previous statements regarding the relativity of all existence are no longer valid? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative. [Richard]: ‘What is this universe ‘relative’ to (as an actuality and not as a concept)? [Respondent]: ‘So, within that relativity, yes, stripped of illusion, flora and fauna exist. [Richard]: ‘What ‘relativity’ are you talking about (other than the mathematician’s relativity)? RESPONDENT: The universe, as you define it, is absolute. RICHARD: Aye ... and as the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter) what is called the ‘relative’ is actually the absolute. RESPONDENT: All other existence is relative to that absolute. RICHARD: What ‘other existence’ are you talking about? There is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe. RESPONDENT: For example, flora and fauna are born, grow, and die. RICHARD: Yes ... this is matter arranging and rearranging itself perpetually (matter as either mass or energy). RESPONDENT: All three activities need a reference point, which is provided by the universe (the absolute). RICHARD: As all flora and fauna are as much the universe as all the stars are (which are born, grow, age and die) where is there a ‘reference point’? All of the universe is in a constate state of flux. * RESPONDENT: It matters not if someone else calls this universe Brahma, Void, Otherness, foo, or Coca-Cola. RICHARD: It matters inasmuch as it informs the listener where the speaker is speaking from ... to call this physical universe ‘Brahma’ indicates a Hindu conditioning; to call this physical universe ‘Void’ indicates a poor quality Buddhist understanding; to call this physical universe ‘Otherness’ indicates a generalised religio-spiritual comprehension; to call this physical universe ‘foo’ indicates ignorance; to call this physical universe ‘Coca-Cola’ indicates a cleverness operating. Therefore, in the interests of clarity of communication, I prefer to call it by its proper name. RESPONDENT: That is fine. Let us call it universe in our future discussions. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: Here are a few attributes of universe, as I see them: 1. Universe is the absolute against which all change is perceived. RICHARD: You are aware, of course, that the universe is as much the building you are sitting in reading these words as it is ‘out there’ in the far reaches of galactic distance? RESPONDENT: 2. All existence (other than that of universe itself) is relative to universe itself. RICHARD: What existence ‘other than that of the universe itself’ are you talking about? For example: these pixels on this computer screen are as much the universe as anything else is ... there is no thing that is not the universe. RESPONDENT: 3. Universe itself is neither born nor it dies. RICHARD: Yet the universe is constantly arranging and rearranging itself everywhere and everywhen as everything ... that something is born and dies is but a local event (‘local’ as viewed by an observer). RESPONDENT: 4. All time, past, present, and future is contained in the universe, but universe itself doesn’t have a dimension of it. RICHARD: As this universe is eternal it is ‘all time’ (be it ‘past, present and future’) ... it is already always this moment in eternal time whenever you go anywhere. RESPONDENT: 5. Universe neither grows nor shrinks. RICHARD: Yes, infinitude (infinite space, eternal time, perpetual matter) does not and can not have that characteristic ... there is nothing else other than this universe for it to be able to grow into or to shrink out of. RESPONDENT: 6. All space is contained in universe, but space is not a dimension of universe. RICHARD: As this universe is infinite it is ‘all space’ ... it is already always this place in infinite space whenever you go anywhere. RESPONDENT: 7. All forms are perceived against the backdrop of the universe, but universe itself is formless. RICHARD: Yet ‘all forms’ are as much the universe as any ‘backdrop’ is: the universe is as much form (matter) as it is time and space ... time and space and matter are seamless. The attribute called ‘formless’ (along with ‘timeless’ and ‘spaceless’) are abstract concepts and have no existence outside of human imagination. Logic (which depends upon opposites) cannot encompass infinitude. RESPONDENT: Right? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality?
RESPONDENT: It matters not if someone else calls this universe Brahma, Void, Otherness, foo, or Coca-Cola. RICHARD: It matters inasmuch as it informs the listener where the speaker is speaking from ... to call this physical universe ‘Brahma’ indicates a Hindu conditioning; to call this physical universe ‘Void’ indicates a poor quality Buddhist understanding; to call this physical universe ‘Otherness’ indicates a generalised religio-spiritual comprehension; to call this physical universe ‘foo’ indicates ignorance; to call this physical universe ‘Coca-Cola’ indicates a cleverness operating. Therefore, in the interests of clarity of communication, I prefer to call it by its proper name. RESPONDENT: That is fine. Let us call it universe in our future discussions. RICHARD: Good. (snip discussion about the physical universe) RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality? RESPONDENT: Yes. The sages expressed it thus: Aham Brahmasmi, Tat Tvam Asi – I am infinite, and so are you. RICHARD: Your ‘let us call it universe in our future discussions’ resolve did not last very long. When you bring in the ‘sages’ to support your case you are quoting, in conjunction, two of what is called in some quarters as being the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism as if they mean the same as what I am saying about the physical universe vis-à-vis the physical body ... allow me to supply the other two so as to present the complete picture:
The first phrase, ‘Prajnanam Brahma’, is known as a ‘lakshana vakya’ or defining phrase because it defines Brahman in terms of Consciousness (and not the physical body or the physical universe). The second phrase, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’, is called an ‘anubhava vakya’ or an experiencing phrase because is only through the experience of Consciousness that one learns the truth about Self. The third phrase, ‘Tat Tvam Asi’, is an ‘upadesha vakya’ or teaching phrase because this phrase was transferred by the guru to the disciple when the guru felt that the latter was receptive to a shift in Consciousness. The fourth phrase, ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’, is called an ‘anusandhana vakya’ or a phrase that connects one to God or Truth ... which sums up in no uncertain terms the non-differentiation between the Self and the Absolute. Whereas, as I said further above, I am this flesh and blood body only – it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude – and as this flesh and blood body only I was born, live for x-number of years, and die ... whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). In short: I am mortal.
RICHARD: The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality? RESPONDENT: Yes. The sages expressed it thus: Aham Brahmasmi, Tat Tvam Asi – I am infinite, and so are you. RICHARD: Your ‘let us call it universe in our future discussions’ resolve did not last very long. When you bring in the ‘sages’ to support your case you are quoting, in conjunction, two of what is called in some quarters as being the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism as if they mean the same as what I am saying about the physical universe vis-à-vis the physical body ... allow me to supply the other two so as to present the complete picture: 1. ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ (Consciousness is Brahman). (Aitareya Upanishad). 2. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). 3. ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art). (Chhandogya Upanishad). 4. ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ (Atman is Brahman). (Mandukya Upanishad). The first phrase, ‘Prajnanam Brahma’, is known as a ‘lakshana vakya’ or defining phrase because it defines Brahman in terms of Consciousness (and not the physical body or the physical universe). The second phrase, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’, is called an ‘anubhava vakya’ or an experiencing phrase because is only through the experience of Consciousness that one learns the truth about Self. The third phrase, ‘Tat Tvam Asi’, is an ‘upadesha vakya’ or teaching phrase because this phrase was transferred by the guru to the disciple when the guru felt that the latter was receptive to a shift in Consciousness. The fourth phrase, ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’, is called an ‘anusandhana vakya’ or a phrase that connects one to God or Truth ... which sums up in no uncertain terms the non-differentiation between the Self and the Absolute. Whereas, as I said further above, I am this flesh and blood body only – it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude – and as this flesh and blood body only I was born, live for x-number of years, and die ... whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). In short: I am mortal. RESPONDENT: In long: this mortal is also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc. RICHARD: No ... ‘in long’ it reads (as above): I am this flesh and blood body only – it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude – and as this flesh and blood body only I was born, live for x-number of years, and die ... whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). I am not ‘timeless, etc.’. RESPONDENT: I thought we agreed upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we? RICHARD: No, I have been most specific that the physical universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal and materially perpetual ... in direct contrast to the non-physical Brahman being spaceless, timeless and formless. ‘Tis the universe which is immortal ... not some god (or ground of being by whatever name).
RICHARD: In short: I am mortal. RESPONDENT: In long: this mortal is also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc. RICHARD: No ... ‘in long’ it reads as above (now snipped): I am this flesh and blood body only – it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude – and as this flesh and blood body only I was born, live for x-number of years, and die ... whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). I am not ‘timeless, etc.’. RESPONDENT: I thought we agreed upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we? RICHARD: No, I have been most specific that the physical universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal and materially perpetual ... in direct contrast to the non-physical Brahman being spaceless, timeless and formless. ‘Tis the universe which is immortal ... not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Tis the universe which is immortal ... not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes]. Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So, which one is it, [A] or [B]? RICHARD: It is quite simple: the very stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows, ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory) .... be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Viz.:
Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’ ... or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example.
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Nine) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
